Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2001.01.081 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA January 8, 2001 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the January 8, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojués, Deal, Dreiling, Osterling, Vistica and Luzuriaga Absent: Commissioner Keighran Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza III. MINUTES The minutes of the December 11, 2000 meeting regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved. IV. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. V. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Consent Calendar Item No. 1f, 1405 El Camino Real, was removed from the consent calendar by a commissioner and placed on the regular action calendar before Item No. 2. CP noted a clarification to condition 3 of the project at 2303 Trousdale Drive. The condition should read: that the operation of the school classes shall follow the staggered schedule indicated by the charts in the staff report for the meeting date of January 8, 2000, as adjusted by Franklin School based on actual experience and the City should be informed about changes to this schedule.” C. Bojués noted that he would abstain from voting on the project at 1108 Vancouver Avenue because he lives within the noticing area. C. Deal noted that the action on 1108 Vancouver should reflect the plate heights shown on the January 3, 2001, plans, which was a reduction of one foot on each floor from the original, not a total reduction of one foot as noted in the staff report. 1A. 1108 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHU DESIGN & ENG., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; GARY ERNST, PROPERTY OWNER) 1B. 1704 SANCHEZ AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (VITAS VISKANTA, APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND DESIGNER) City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2001 2 1C. 1460 BERNAL AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE FOR UNCOVERED SPACE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JERRY WINGES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JOHN AND JENNIFER WALSH, PROPERTY OWNERS) 1D. 1328 DRAKE AVENUE - ZONED - R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (THOMAS R.B. AND TERRI C. BOESCH, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; GUMBINGER ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) 1E. 2303 TROUSDALE DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SCHOOL USE IN AN EXISTING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (ERUDITE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, APPLICANTS; BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, PROPERTY OWNER; THE KASTROP GROUP, INC., ARCHITECT) C. Bojués moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, including commissioners amendments and comments and with the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution, amending condition 3 of the 2303 Trousdale private school project and adding a clarification to condition one of the 1108 Vancouver project to reflect the reduced plate heights on both the first and second floors. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent) for 1704 Sanchez, 1460 Bernal, 1328 Drake, 2303 Trousdale Avenues and 6-0-1-1 (C. Bojués abstaining, C. Keighran absent) on the project at 1108 Vancouver. Appeal procedures were advised. This item ended at 7:12 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 1F. 1405 EL CAMINO REAL - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A THREE (3) STORY, FOUR (4) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (FRANK GONSALVES, A.I.A., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ROMAN AND GALINA KNOP, PROPERTY OWNERS) A. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE B. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP Reference staff report, 01.08.01, with attachments. Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Frank Gonsalves, architect, 490 El Camino Real #105, Belmont, represented the project and was available to answer questions. Commissioner noted a concern with the resolution of the grading at the front of the lot, different than what was explained last time, there is an opportunity to fill in the gap between the proposed building and the Eucalyptus trees on El Camino Real, this gap is not a useable area, there might be an opportunity to add several trees in this location to match the scale of landscaping along El Camino Real rather than the shrubs shown on the plans, need to consider at what Caltrans might do in the right-of-way, suggest adding Pittosporum, Eucalyptus trees are also appropriate, city approved street tree list might offer additional appropriate species, this is an area suitable for planting a large tree, could add a condition to place a tree in the front yard. Architect noted that he is willing to comply and would notify the property owner of these suggestions; Commissioner noted that the seven foot floor to ceiling height in the garage may not be enough room for the furnace duct work, seven feet is the minimum clear height requirement for a furnace, additional one foot increase in height at this location may change entire building and require City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2001 3 this project to be reviewed by the Commission at a later date, wanted to bring it to the applicant’s attention now. Architect noted that the owner is a mechanical contractor and that he would study this issue further. Dan Rolandson, property owner of adjacent building at 1500 Hillside Drive, noted that he was glad to see this property being redeveloped, asked what would happen legally if there is damage to his property once construction has started, CA Anderson noted that the civil code requires that the developer has an obligation to shore up the property under construction, there is no guarantee that there will not be a problem, superior court will review if damage still occurs after all has been done to prevent damage. There were no further comments from the audience and the public hearing was closed. .C. Vistica moved to approve the project and tentative map, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 21, 2000, sheets A-1, A-2, and L-1, and Tentative Parcel Map sheet 1 of 1 (date stamped December 1, 2000); 2) that lot coverage shall not exceed 50% of the lot area and any increase in the lot area shall require an amendment to the Condominium Permit and Tentative Map and a variance from the Planning Commission; 3) that two trees, which will reach large scale visually compatible with the eucalyptus on El Camino Real which species shall be determined to be appropriate by the City Arborist, shall be planted in the front yard between the structure and the front property line; 4) that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 135.07 (35'-0" maximum building height) as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along El Camino Real (100.07'), and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 5) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s October 14 and December 5, 2000 memos, and the Fire Marshal’s June 26, 2000 memo shall be met; 6) that one (1) guest parking stall (10' x 20') shall be designated and clearly marked at the rear of the site and marked on the final map and plans, shall not be assigned to any unit or used for any kind of enclosure, but shall be owned, maintained, and kept available for guest parking by the condominium association; 7) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 8) that the developer shall provide the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 9) that the minimum garage door width for each unit shall be 16'-0", that the parking garages shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking at no additional fee, solely for the condominium owners, and no portion of any parking area and the egress aisles shall be converted to any other use or any support activity such as storage or utilities; 10) that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 11) that if a gate system is installed across the driveway, there shall be an intercom system connected to each dwelling which allows residents to provide guest access to their site by pushing a button inside their units; 12) that the project shall meet the requirements of the Municip al Code Chapter 15.14 Storm Water Management and Discharge Control including the Storm Water Pollution Prevention guidelines; and; 13) that this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2001 4 Discussion on the motion: The maker of the motion suggested adding a condition that two large scale trees be added in the front yard as approved by the City Arborist, Eucalyptus trees would be appropriate, suggested a scale compatible to the existing trees along El Camino Real. The second agreed with the amendment. Commissioner noted that a serious discussion regarding multifamily design review is needed Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project and recommend the Tntative map with one added condition. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 voice vote (C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2. 1610 FORESTVIEW AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHN HERMANNSSON, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DEAN AND TAMI RALLY, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 01.08.01, with attachments. Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked how the number of bedrooms was calculated, it appears that the ground floor has four potential bedrooms. Planner Hurin noted that the access to the office is only through the master bedroom, and therefore the office is not considered a bedroom, the breakfast nook is a part of the kitchen and therefore did not qualify as a potential bedroom, therefore there are two potential bedrooms on the ground floor. Commissioner noted that a condition could be added that the door location in the hall not be moved so that the potential of additional bedrooms in the future will be eliminated. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. John Hermannsson, architect, 1204 Middlefield Road, Suite E, Redwood City, represented the project and was available to answer questions. Commissioner noted that he did not see a landscape plan, asked if the architect had any plans to add planting to screen the second story addition, there is some landscaping shown along the side and rear of the property, but it is not enough to screen the second story. The applicant noted that there is minimal landscaping at the rear of the lot, the new trellis will screen the addition at the front of the house, several trees are shown on the site plan; Commissioner noted that the floor area ratio variance has been eliminated but the front setback variance for the trellis still remains, need to convince the Commission why it should be approved, trellis should be integrated into the structure better, why is the proposed trellis location the only way to solve the problem? Applicant noted that there is a front porch off the breakfast nook, enhances the front porch use, trellis provides shade and interest to the front of the house since the front entrance is towards the rear of the house, ties in to the craftsman details, rear yard is small, trying to take advantage of the front yard. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: front setback variance is for trellis, see trellis as a way to hold up vegetation, trellis is not adding bulk to the structure, trellis ties into the house, in favor of granting the variance, project has come a long way and fits into the neighborhood. C. Deal moved to approve the application, by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Discussion on the motion: Commission noted that there is a hallway joining the first floor office to the first floor master bedroom, suggested adding a condition that there shall be no changes to the first floor corridors or door locations; having a difficult time supporting the front setback variance, feels there are other better solutions within the code that would accomplish the same intent, lot is flat, 141’ deep and City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2001 5 has a standard width, has a large rear yard, most houses on this block are set back further than this house, agree that trellis does not add to the bulk, but sees no hardship to grant a variance. Commissioner noted that if the justification for the trellis is to add plant material, there are other ways to accomplish this, adding trees would be one example. CA Anderson suggested that condition #1 be amended so that it is clear that the front setback variance is for the trellis only. The maker of the motion and second agreed. Commissioner noted that the FAR variance has been eliminated, concern with the skylights has been addressed, trellis is a nice feature, in support of project. C. Deal moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 27, 2000, sheets A-1 through A-9, that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit, and that this front setback variance shall only apply to the open trellis at the front of the house and that the open trellis shall not be enclosed to add living space; 2) that there shall be no changes to the first floor corridors or door locations; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that the Chief Building Official’s and City Engineer’s June 10, 2000, memos shall be met; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with one added and one amended condition. The motion passed on a 5-1-1 roll call vote (C. Vistica dissenting, C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:46 p.m. 3. 1600 CARMELITA AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MAHMUT YUKSEL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; RICHARD FOUST, ARCHITECT) Reference staff report, 01.08.01, with attachments. Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Richard Foust, architect, noted that he tried to revise the plans according the Commission’s suggestions at the previous meeting, hope all concerns were addressed. Commission noted a concern with the window details and stucco mold, details are not representative of the new windows to be installed. Architect noted that the detail came from a Marvin catalog, but doesn’t show the flashing. Commission is not interested in the flashing, detail shows stucco on the stud, not over plywood sheathing, do not agree with the details, still feel that the plans are not showing what will be built, not asking for finished drawings, need to show accurate schematic drawings, feels architect understands the objective of the details; was adamant at the previous meeting about reducing the mass and bulk of the building, this structure will be big, said at previous meeting that the porch is too tall and suggested that the porch height be reduced, architect kept the same porch roof height and raised the porch finished floor, this did not accomplish anything; Further discussion: Commission noted a discrepancy in the plate heights, some indicate 8’, other places show 9’, this variation is not shown on the plans, plans are much better, but are still inaccurate, did not address concerns, house is going to be very big with a 12’ plate height in the living room. Applicant noted that there is an 8’ and 9’ plate height variation designed into the front; noted that the code allows 12’ plate heights, other house in neighborhood is 5’ higher than the proposed house. Commission commented that the set standards in the code won’t reduce the mass and bulk, need to look at design City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2001 6 review guidelines, can propose a house with maximum FAR, but also need to look at mass and bulk, tired of reviewing the same project over and over again, see no progress. Applicant asked the Commission for suggestions on appropriate plate heights. Commission has allowed 9’ plate on the first floor and an 8’ plate on the second floor, 10’ plate is too tall, need to understand the scale of the building, this house will be large when placed next to another house, structure has no human scale. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: architect is trying to make changes, suggest project be referred to a design review consultant. CA noted that this project has been reviewed by consultant once. Commission suggested that the project would fit if every height and width dimension were reduced by 10%, will be more compatible and will have a more human scale, project stretches everything, project will be easier to approve if mass and bulk is reduced, sections indicate the proposed mass and bulk of the building, this is a straight box on all sides, this is the wrong attitude for design a new house in Burlingame, need to look at details, there is “too much air in the balloon”, too big, cannot support project, get the idea from the architect that he has not been through the design review process in Burlingame before, maximizing the square footage of the house with a 1500 SF basement, this is a 4600 SF house on a 6000 SF lot, architect has to make more of an effort to integrate the house better into the neighborhood, this project has been to four meetings. C. Luzuriaga moved to deny the application. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Discussion on the motion: want to make it clear that this does not mean that a maximum size house can’t be built, but need to keep mass and bulk down, suggested assigning a subcommittee to work with the applicant if he wishes. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 voice vote (C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:14 p.m. 4. 732 LEXINGTON WAY - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING TWO-STORY RESIDENCE (SHARON AND DAVID ZOVOD, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) Reference staff report, 01.08.01, with attachments. City Planner presented the staff report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Jack Matthews, architect, noted that there was a minor revision to the elevations as suggested by the Commission, the front of the house is more unified and now contains consistent roof shapes. Commission noted that the left side elevation is blank and asked if a window or other element could be added to break it up. The architect noted that there was a window at this location in the previous plans which provided light for the stairway, window was removed, is set back 12’ from building edge on second floor, window on front elevation now provides light and ventilation to the stairway, the blank wall will not be seen from the street. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: in favor of this project at previous meeting, applicant has addressed the Commission’s concerns. C. Luzuriaga moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2001 7 November 3, 2000, sheet A-2 and December 28, 2000, sheets A-1 and A-3 with revisions to the rear roof line; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window(s), adding a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Discussion on the motion: pleased with the quality of drawings and revisions to the roof tied the roof structure together. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6 -0-1 voice vote (C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:21 p.m. 5. 1825 CASTENADA DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY RESIDENCE (G & B CONTRACTORS, APPLICANT; DEAN FANTHAM AND YVETTE GOROSTIAGUE, PROPERTY OWNERS; ROBERT A. WILLIAMS, ARCHITECT) Reference staff report, 01.08.01, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Yvette Gorostiague, property owner, addressed the Commission’s concerns, have revised the East Elevation, provided a landscape plan, added story poles with ribbons, provided photos of story poles on house, which show how the construction is not blocking neighbors’ views, hillside at rear of property is 80’ high, made efforts to contact neighbors, sent out a letter to concerned neighbors and received only one response from owner at 1809 Castenada Drive, did not leave a name or phone number so she could not respond. Sam Honeo, 1812 Castenada Drive, Mrs. Richard Kelly, 1821 Castenada Drive, Bob DeVincenzi, 1809 Castenada Drive, and William and Christine Kahn, 1837 Castenada Drive spoke in opposition of the project, noted that every house on Castenada is approximately 1700-1800 square feet in size, proposed house is 4500 square feet with six bedrooms, have lived in his house for 25 years, the neighborhood is peaceful and pleasant, there is little traffic, the proposed house is a monstrosity compared to other houses in the neighborhood, spoke with the property owner and asked why such a large house is needed, owner told him that there was not one to meet their needs available; went to the County Hall of Records and found that there are several owners at this property, there is a $600,000 mortgage on the house, concerned about the financing for the house, what guarantee is there that the house will be built after it has been demolished. Commission noted that the city cannot guarantee that the house will be built. There is only one two story house on a block of 84 houses, six bedroom house will be too big, have lived in house for 43 years, submitted a letter noting her concerns with the project, her property is 450 feet long and only one which is flat, they use 300 feet of the rear yard, the subject lot is steeper, the proposed house will be an eyesore, second floor looks into their yard, will have no privacy, chimney extends out two feet and is five feet from the property line, concerned with sparks from the chimney landing on their roof, house looks nice but should be built somewhere else, husband ill am concerned with noise from demolition and construction, bought there second house in Burlingame because they wanted to stay in the city, submitted photographs taken from inside her house towards the proposed house, will loose light and get darker, house will be built closer to the street, will not see traffic when backing out of garage, east elevation shows a two story house going straight up, will loose their view City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2001 8 from the bedroom and bathroom, adding 2300 square feet and a wine cellar, digging for the wine cellar could affect their house, did not respond to the applicant because she felt that the owner could not be convinced to revise the project; would fit in the neighborhood if the existing house were remodeled and an addition was made which was consistent with the architecture of the neighborhood, lots in the neighborhood are big enough to build a seven story hotel, would like to see an elevation which reflects the detached garage, there are none in the neighborhood, not all neighbors received the owners letter, made copies of the letter and distributed to the neighbors. Further comment: have lived in our house for 36 years, Castenada Drive is only two blocks long, half of which is in Burlingame, have no objection to the property owners themselves, they are wonderful, feel that when the owners realized that the proposed house was going to be three times as large as the other homes in the neighborhood, they thought to ask the neighbors how they felt and received objection, neighbors should have shown the project to the neighbors before submitting an application, Castenada Drive was built 40 years ago, existing houses were built to a maximum, became a community of single story houses, raised five boys in three bedrooms, existing homes can accommodate families with children, have rights as a community, house is an intrusion on the community, don’t know how long owners will stay, may become a problem with the number of bedrooms and increased traffic in the future, house could be built and sold right away, could be appealing for larger families or multifamilies, feels story poles are not accurate; am a teacher who taught carpentry, this is not something we want to see, site is large but most of it is unusable, there is only one other house in the neighborhood that is two story, the neighborhood is composed of different ethnic backgrounds, many have a hard time speaking at a public hearing before the Commission, one reason why the whole block is not present tonight, there is no way one can build towards the rear of the lot, hills rises steeply at the rear, existing house was well maintained, house is expensive and it is a waste to demolish the house, there are enough alternatives, cannot ignore neighbors’ wants and needs, asked if story poles represent room height or roof height. Commission clarified the neighborhood concern to be that the existing single story house is 2300 square feet and that the proposed two story house is 4500 SF, code allows 7200 square feet based on the size of the lot, the aerial shows 12-14 lots with a similar situation. Public testamony continued; noting concern with the potential the view blockage from his house at the previous meeting, have looked at the story poles and feel that there will be no loss of view,to him would like to withdraw objection; would like to make sure the proposed house does not exceed the building envelope as shown by the story poles, noted that he received a letter from the owner and did not respond because he was out of town during the holidays. The Commission’s decisions at the pr evious meeting were thoughtful, is not against this project but does not live in this neighborhood, reviewed the story poles, can only see the story poles from his rear property line, project has no impact on his property, is concerned about throwing away the house. In response: architect for the project, noted that the proposed house has an attached garage, a licensed contractor installed the story poles which were laid out very accurately to match the proposed plan, horizontal ribbons show the plate height and the roof ridge, not proposing house closer to the street, second story is pushed back, structure is not three times as large, Planning Dept. classifies this house as having six potential bedrooms, there is one exercise room and one hobby room without closets which were counted as bedrooms, so really have four bedrooms; property owner noted that it is their intention to live in the house for a long time, went to schools in Burlingame, family lives nearby. Commission noted that each application is based on merit. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2001 9 Commission discussion: will vote against the project, opposed to this approach to building in Burlingame, there are plenty of ways to use the existing spaces, fit into smaller spaces, has less of an impact, has a high respect for the community, would not do something to disrupt the neighborhood, instead would buy a house, live in it for a couple of years to find out what the needs of the neighborhood are, opposed to demolishing a house in good shape; perplexed with the house to family ratio, this house fits into the neighborhood well, mass will not disrupt the fabric of the neighborhood that much, would rather see an addition to the existing house, but have right to build a new house, can support the project; resource management is important, architecture blends in well with the neighborhood, house will be larger, within the code, have to act on design review, change is inevitable, can support project. Further discussion: understand the concerns of neighborhood change, lot is wider and larger, the mass and bulk has been kept down, rooflines mitigate the mass, did a good job, this is not a popularity contest, can’t take into consideration whether the house is for a developer or owner, cannot only act on neighborhood complaint, owner is entitled to a second floor, would like to see the placement of the story poles verified by a licensed surveyor, suggest that a photograph be taken at different angles before and after construction to ensure accuracy with the story poles, what if story poles are off by two feet? CA suggested that an inspection be conducted during the framing of the structure, if it is found to be off then project will have to come back to Commission; torn between was is allowed by the code and design review, this is a uniform neighborhood of single story ranch-style houses, project would change the fabric of the neighborhood, not in support of the project. C. Vistica moved to approve the application with the added conditions that the height of the story poles be verified by a licensed surveyor during the framing of the structure, that the surveyor shall also provide a photographic survey at different angles before and after construction, and that if di fferent the project shall be reviewed by the Commission, and that project shall comply with the proposed demolition recycling ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 30, 2000, Sheets 1-4, and 6 and December 21, 2000, Sheets 5 and 7; 2) that the height of the story poles shall be verified by a licensed surveyor during the framing of each floor, second story plate line and roof ridge and be submittted to the City Engineer for verification at each step, and that the surveyor shall provide a photographic survey at different angles conducted before and after the construction, and that if either the framing or photographs are different than the approved plans the construction shall be corrected or the project shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission; 3) that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition recycling ordinance recently approved by the City Council; 4) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s November 6, 2000 memo shall be met; 5) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window(s), adding a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Discussion on the motion: understand the feelings that the house will violate the neighborhood, architect has done a good job with keeping the mass and bulk down, not perceived as a monster house. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-2-1 roll call vote (Cers. Luzuriaga and Dreiling dissenting, C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:20 p.m City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2001 10 6. 2405 HILLSIDE DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WINDOWS WITHIN 10' OF PROPERTY LINE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (DAMIR O. RADOS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; DAVE HOWELL, DESIGNER) Reference staff report, 01.08.01, with attachments. City Planner presented the staff report and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked if the applicant had a permit to remove the redwood tree because it was damaging hardscape; he also noted that there are two redwood trees on this site one straddling the property line on each side of the site. The documentation is not clear which tree is addressed or whether both trees are included. The CA noted that this item could be continued until the city arborist can clarify his statement. C. Osterling noted that he lives within the noticing area of this application so will abstain from this item. He stepped down from the dais. Commissioners asked if a trees straddles a property line does the neighbor have something to say about its removal; yes, both property owners need to agree to have the tree removed. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Dave Howell, designer, 2825 Hillside Drive, represented the project. He noted that this project had been referred to, and reviewed by a design review consultant and the consultant recommended it. Commissioners noted that the City arborist needs to look at both trees, if the tree is causing damage to the existing foundation it is not relevant since this is a request for a new house, need to know if the arborist was aware of this. Applicant summarized the revisions made to the design in response to the commission’s last review. Commissioners noted that by itself the design is all right however don’t see how this design matches this neighborhood, it would be consistent with the Trousdale area. Applicant noted that this neighborhood is eclectic. Commissioners expressed concern about the trees, not the one to the west next to the garage as it is in decline, but the one on the east; the tree removal permit is not clear about which tree, although it does not appear to include both trees; tree to the right should be retained, could pull the foundation of a new house back and accommodate nicely, in some circumstances variances have been granted to save a tree. Applicant noted that the tree to the right is affecting the foundations of both houses. Applicant noted that he believed that the tree permit was for removal of both trees. Commissioners noted that the backdrop of trees is a big component of the character of this neighborhood and this proposal removing the two redwoods would take a big chuck of that backdrop, there is a lot of opportunity on this site to design around the trees, would like to see what is being done to respond to the neighborhood not just the site plan. Also concerned that there was not enough FAR set aside to provide for a two car garage in the future without having to get an FAR variance, don’t like to be put in that position with new construction. Applicant noted he has worked with the design reviewer as directed, why is the commission reviewing it now? Commissioners noted that a project must respond to both the clients needs and uphold and reinforce the neighborhood character, in this case that was not done. Applicant noted that this is the house the client wants, on the same footprint as existing, and it is within the code requirements. CA pointed out that the design review guidelines are a part of the code as well, and the applicant needs to explain why this proposal fits them. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: City Attorney and City Planner recommend that we continue this matter until we can get more information from the City Arborist on the trees; comfortable with the design, if the issue is just the tree can continue, if the issues are greater then we would need a different motion; the issue is greater than the tree, the building design is not compatible with a number of design guideline components: mass and bulk, design has no relief on either side-straight up; front of the building is boxy, windows and a City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2001 11 lot of plain stucco, is a bit of a monster; site design is not compatible with the trees; if come back with the trees saved and a notch in the house to do it, still have to live with the house. Modifying the design to save the trees would affect the design, if item continued would get back the same design, wish to clarify the tree issue and give direction to the designer. CA noted that item could be denied without prejudice and sent back to design review study when the applicant has responded and the tree issue has been clarified. C. Bojués moved for a denial without prejudice directing that the tree issue be clarified, direction given on the design addressed, and then returned to design review study. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: design needs to accommodate the tree, so footprint needs to be changed; concerned that the denial without prejudice will allow the applicant to use the tree permit to remove the tree, suggest a continuance to get the information needed from the city arborist then decide the action on the project, would like to know from the arborist what needs to be done to save the trees; the tree report notes that one tree is in decline but it could be 100 years before it dies. C. Bojués suggested that the motion be amended to continue this item to the next meeting for information on the tree and clarification for the scope of the tree removal permit and the reasons for the decision by the city arborist; and suggest that the tree removal permit be suspended until the arborist could review it and report back to the commission. The second C. Vistica agreed to the amendment to the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the amended motion to continue action on this item until the next meeting , January 22, 2001, and receipt of a report from the city arborist. The motion passed on a 6- 0-1 (C. Keighran absent) voice vote. This action is not appealable. This item ended at 10:07 p.m. 7. 810 ALPINE ROAD - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION CLOSER THAN 4’-0” TO AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (RAY BRAYER, BC&D, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MIKE AND NOELLE ENGEMANN, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 01.08.01, with attachments. City Planner presented the staff report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Ray Brayer, 920 Morrell, represented the project noting that he would be happy to answer questions. Commissioner asked why the applicant was requesting a 6 inch separation between the main structure and the garage. Applicant noted there had been a recent addition to the family and they need to add a bedroom and play area for the children, the area they are proposing to add extends the lines of the existing building. Commissioners noted that proposed addition does not make good use of the exterior space in his experience, having 2’-11” between house and garage does not work, only way out of the rear yard is through garage or house; the house could be streatched out and adequate separation provided or the garage narrowed, the garage is wider than it technically needs to be now so there is room. Applicant noted that it is a cost issue of having to pay for the replacement of the garage. Complimented applicant on the quality of the drawings. Suggested alternatives to arrangment by placing master bedroom within open space and play area separately with access to yard would make outdoor space “L” shaped and more useable. Applicant noted that he would like to discuss these ideas with his client. Commissioner noted that when place a gate across a driveway , the driveway behind the gate becomes a part of the useable backyard. There were no further comments from the floor on the project and the public hearing was closed. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2001 12 C. Deal moved to continue this item to the meeting of January 22, 2001, to allow the applicant to respond to the comments made by the commission or to eliminate the need for a conditional use permit. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent) voice vote. This item is not appealable. This item concluded at 10:37 p.m. 8. 33 ARUNDEL ROAD - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FRONT PORCH ADDITION (JOHN SUDANO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) Reference staff report, 01.08.01, with attachments. City Planner presented the staff report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. C. Deal noted that he would abstain from this item because of a business relationship with the applicant. C. Vistica noted that he lived within the noticing area so he too would abstain from the item. Chairman Luzuriaga noted for the record and applicant that an action would take three votes of the four members seated. Applicant noted that he would like to go forward anyway. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. John Sudano, property owner, spoke noting house was built without a porch and the new 4 foot landing will make the exit safe, 4 homes on the block have a covered porch and they do not meet setback either; the porch will cause the house to blend in with the surrounding houses; this is a narrow lot, only 38 feet wide and the house is only 24 feet wide and there is a protected tree at the center of the lot; the house is 1000 SF with one bathroom; feel that the covered porch will be an asset to the quality of the house and will add benefit to the living space. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojués noted that this was only a 2 foot exception for a front porch, other houses on the street have the same exception and the commission has approved similar exceptions in similar circumstances, so would move to approve the front setback variance for the new front porch by resolution with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 14, 2000, Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations and that the front porch shall be kept open and never be enclosed or converted to living area that the variance shall not continue should the house be demolished; and 2) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling who noted that he liked the porch but want to make sure that the variance being granted is for an open porch and should not continue if their house were ever demolished and would like to add a condition to that effect; the maker of the motion agreed to the addition. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to grant the front setback variance for an open porch. The motion passed on a 4-0-2-1 (Cers. Vistica and Deal abstaining, C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item ended at 10:45 p.m. 9. FLOOR AREA RATIO BASEMENT ORDINANCE – EXPANSION OF FLOOR AREA RATIO TO INCLUDE SOME BASEMENT AREAS IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2001 13 Reference staff report, 01.08.01, with attachments. City Planner presented the summary of the proposed provisions to extend FAR to basement areas in single family houses in the R-1 district and noted how past Planning Commission revisions had been incorporated. Commission asked if open stair wells or light wells would be counted in FAR. Staff responded no, only if they were enclosed or covered would they be counted. CP noted comments in two letters from the public Mr. and Mrs. Hubner and Ruth Jacobs, 2965 Arguello. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners comments: subcommittee did a good job drafting this ordinance and closing a loop hole in the ordinance, an example of which was on tonight’s agenda, good reason to approve these changes. C. Osterling moved to recommend these regulations to extend the floor area ratio to some basement areas to City Council for adoption. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent) voice vote. This item is not appealable, but will be forwarded to the City Council. The item ended at 10:55 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 10. 2606 SUMMIT DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHRIS NGAI AND YOLANDA LEUNG, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; DAROSA & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) CP Monroe presented a summary of the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Johnny Darosa, 1299 Old Bayshore Highway, designer represented the project. He noted that he would answer any questions. Commissioners asked: difficult to tell on plans what is new and what is existing, are all the windows on the first floor and the gable window existing; the detail on the garage does not seem to match that of the house; do not understand why you want to cover up the concrete block construction with wood accents; the west elevation looks like a large wall, can this mass be broken up, can similar window detail to what exists be used; the front of the house where the stair kicks out is not represented c orrectly on the plans, it doesn’t seem to work with the roof line, needs correction; would like the front (garage) to tie to the rest of the house; feel that he location of the mass of this addition is good; concerned about the treatment on the sides of the garage, the stucco coins, does not fit the rest of the house; feels like the angle tilt on the addition is awkward, explain; there appears to be a problem with the plans, the two sides of the second story rectangle scale with different lengths, something is wrong, 2 feet is missing from the elevation, this could have a dramatic effect since the building is too tall now; clay tile on roof should be flat; could you build on the soft modern aesthetic of the house by adding a trellis to demarcate the entrance, use color to differentiate the design, use wood or composition shingle on the roof. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment to the floor: Leonard Borriso, 2600 Summit Drive spoke. He submitted pictures showing how this house faces into many of the rooms of his house (kitchen, living room, bedroom, bathroom, garage), the trees provide some privacy now, but not for a second story addition; would the view ordinance preclude them adding a second story at 2600 later City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2001 14 because it would affect the view from the then existing second story on this house. CA noted that it depends upon the construction history and the proportion of the view blocked by the most recent addition. Commission noted plans show small trees on property line, could add more to screen addition, neighbors could also plant trees on their property, some shrubs grow as tall as 25 feet, these would be effective as well, could be a condition of approval. Proposed design needs to consider neighbor. CA noted process is not intended to create entitlements for those who go first. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Osterling noted that the changes discussed are sufficiently minor that this item can be put on the consent calendar with the direction that to address the neighbors concerns vegetative screening be added for the second floor addition and moved accordingly. C. Bojués seconded the motion noting that a condition should be added to clarify that the neighbor retains the right to add a second story. The maker of the motion agreed to the amendment. Comment on the motion: the motion would work if commission was simply accepting the existing architecture, but in this case substantial work needs to be done to the front of the building and the second story wall along the side is also an issue; the neighbor does not have an absolute right to have their privacy protected, but sensitivity to the view is important, this is not a massive addition, it is placed at the center of the house. This appears to be a good candidate for design review, commission has given explicit direction, would prefer not to have on consent; direction would include manipulation of the windows on the property line to address privacy, will affect layout; given clear direction, architect agrees with changes if he executes them OK it could still be on action. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place this on the consent calendar when it returns with direction to staff to also hold a space on the action calendar for this item for that meeting. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent) vote. The Planning Commissions action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:30 p.m. 11. 725 FARRINGDON LANE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT, DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE, AND AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (SCOTT KUEHNE, SUAREZ- KUEHNE ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MARK AND ANNE GOYETTE, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe presented a summary of the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. The project was represented by the property owners Anne and Mark Goyette. They noted in their comments that this is presently a 2 bedroom house and they have three children, they took a previous design to a design reviewer a year ago and ultimately ended up with a new architect and redesigned project; they have spoken to their neighbors and all support, one wrote a letter; the design was devised to save the existing landscaping especially the large Magnolia in the rear yard. Commissioners asked how the height proposed compared to the adjacent houses, about the justification for an attached garage in a neighborhood where most are detached; how does an attached garage address neighborhood compatibility; where is the landscape plan, would like to see large scale shrubs to screen second story addition especially between houses; concerned with relationship of bow window on first floor at front and dormers above, discussed benefits of detached garage and useable rear yard space. Bath and closet over garage could be incorporated into second floor and garage detached; noted that proposed garage was at rear, almost far enough back to look detached, and has a lower roof line than the rest of the house, looks comfortable. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2001 15 Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment to the floor. Robert W. Booth, former resident at 728 Ferrington spoke. Lived on the street for 78 years, Magnolia tree should be removed, it is dangerous because its roots extend above the ground and present a tripping hazard; favor this construction and should be allowed to build; house at 721 Ferrington’s higher section was a part of the original construction; 728 Farrington was built in 1916. Applicant concluded family uses the rear yard, have a detached garage now and area behind it is unusable, shaded can’t grow anything, dead space; have lived in house 9 years, have evaluated the use and traffic pattern, rear yard would be more useful to them with the attached garage. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Vistica have been convinced that the attached garage is all right, it will add variety to the neighborhood, and given its setback location and lower height is a good example, would not like to see this pattern take over the block because it brings the houses too close together but will make motion to bring this item back on the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Bojués who noted that the special permit for the height should be approved because of its consistency with the design. The maker of the motion agree. Comment on the motion: would like the architect to address the relationship of the bow window and the gable to make them work better together before he returns. If going to vote for an attached garage need applicant to make findings about what is unique about this lot so others do not ask for the same; the location of the Magnolia tree in the rear yard is unique, it limits the opportunities for adding on to the house, this is a remodel not a replacement so the placement of the existing house is a given; a condition should be added so that any future remodel of this house should be reviewed by the Planning Commission . The maker and second of the motion agreed to this amendment. Chairman Luzuriaga noted that this item should be set for the consent calendar with proposed revisions on February 12, 2001, and called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent) voice vote. The Planning Commission action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:10 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meetings of December 4, 2000, December 18, 2000 and January 4, 2001. CP Monroe reviewed briefly the actions taken by the City Council at these meetings which related to Planning items. - Discussion of October 18 and December 19, 2000, opinions of the San Mateo County Grand Jury, letter of December 18, 2000, from San Mateo County District Attorney to the Honorable Quentin Kopp, letter of January 2, 2001, from David Luzuriaga to the City Council, and response of City Council to Grand Jury CA Anderson introduced this item. He reviewed the history of the correspondence received and asked the commission to review and affirm, if they like, Chairman Luzuriaga’s letter. The City Council has asked the commission for their input for a letter by the Mayor. The commission discussed the roles of the various agencies in the administration of the Ralph M. Brown Act. C. Osterling made a motion that the commission support the letter prepared by Chairman Luzuriaga. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairman Luzuriaga noted that the letter was crafted to reaffirm the District Attorney’s opinion. He then called for a voice vote on the motion to affirm the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 8, 2001 16 letter. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent) voice vote. The CA noted that he would send a copy of the Mayor’s letter to the Planning Commission. Commission noted that they were pleased with the City Council’s position and were also tired of this matter and have a lot of business to get to. - CP Monroe asked the commission if there were any items that they would like to have placed on the agenda for the Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting on February 24, 2001. Commisioners suggested: what to do about the General Plan/Specific Area Plan and the need to review on-site parking requirements for office buildings. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 1:15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Stan Vistica, Acting Secretary . MIN1.8